Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M., 560 N.W.2d 687.

215 citing documents.

State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Michael David Groschen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. , aff’d, see State v. Lemieux , (discussin g communication requirement in context of warrantless search).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
As the district court found, much o f this conduct is “highly unusual.” (stating that the reasonable-articulable-suspicion standard may be met when an officer “observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that probable cause to arrest exists when the “ objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed ”); State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105, (197
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reason able-articulable-suspicion standard may be met when an officer “observes unusual cond uct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When evaluating the reliability of a tip, this court must examine both “the informant and the informant’s source of information and judge them against all of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The reasonable, articulable suspicion standard is met when the officer “observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” (
State of Minnesota v. Henry James Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry James Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The information necessary to support an investigative stop need not be based on the officer’s personal observations.”
State of Minnesota v. Gabino Otero Labra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gabino Otero Labra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The information necessary to support an investigative stop need not be based on the officer’s personal observations.”
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
n a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,” or “(b) that, if police found it in a place to which others had access, there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.” Florine, 303 Minn. at 105, d at 611; (explaining that there must be “something to connect the [contraband] with a certain individual”).
Jarrod Dwayne Miller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Andrew Faust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Andrew Faust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jarrod Dwayne Miller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The plain-view exception applies only if three conditions are met: “(1) police were lawfully in a position from which they viewed the object, (2) the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent, and (3) the officers had a lawful right of access to the object.”
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 375, 113 S. Ct. at 2136-37).
State of Minnesota v. Jodi Lynette Lacy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jodi Lynette Lacy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “police who have probable cause to arrest a suspect can then conduct a search incident to arrest even if the search occurs before the arrest.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The information necessary to support an investigative stop need not be based on the officer’s personal observations, rather, the police can base an investigative stop on an informant’s tip if it has sufficient indicia of reliability.” d 687, 691 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Parkin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Parkin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Mobley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Mobley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that de novo review applies to reasonable-suspicion determination).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015